Anderson's appeal to fairness and small town values is, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, sanctimonious. An essay with no real position. He even avoids any meaningful conclusion with the phrase "perceived injustice."
Is this the same Anderson who led the City Council effort to fire Paul Hughes, without the legal notice required AND right before Christmas?
Is this the same Anderson who has sold out his reported low-income constituency when he voted with the majority in eliminating Westland Trailer Park, some of the only affordable housing in town?
Is this the same Anderson that appears to vote for development yet readily accepts the developer "buys off" (payment-in-lieu) for low-income housing that somehow is never built?
Is this the same Anderson that wants a "safe harbor" out for businesses that break the law so the City Council has a political loophole so they don't have to enforce the liquor code at a public hearing?
Is this the same Anderson whose position on the future of the Community Center seems to change with the last person he spoke to?
"I know this situation has drawn attention, and will continue to do so for some time. But I wanted to explain, from the DA's perspective how we got here. At the time the police received the report, it was believed to be a burglary. Once police arrived, and based on evidence from the storeowners that Charle and Siller likely entered the store, the police made a burglary felony arrest.
"Once Mr. St. James' office received the reports, he moved quickly to file the felony charges which he believed to be supported by the facts.
"Because neither Charle or Siller had a record, the ADA proposed, through their attorney, a plea deal where they could elect to plead to a deferred felony burglary charge or a misdemeanor charge with 6 months of jail. The two defendants, with full knowledge of their actions, and the opportunity to consult with counsel, took the misdemeanor conviction instead of the felony. Throughout the process they also could have gone to trial on the felony charge. This is the usual approach used in plea bargaining throughout the state of Colorado.
"Unfortunately, it was at this point that communication broke down between the victim(s) and the ADA's office. When Mr. Heib contacted Mr. St. James after hearing of the plea bargain, he expressed strong reservations about the results. Our office bears responsibility for this. We did not ask the right questions of Mr. Heib, which should have included questions about why he did not complete the follow-on witness statements AND why he was contacting us this late in the process. Had we been more sensitive to his needs it is likely that justice would have been better served, not only for Charle and Siller, but also for the community. For this I assume full responsibility.
"Only over the holiday weekend did we become fully aware that other factors should have influenced our decisions. Only today have all the parties been in a room together where we have had an opportunity to hear all sides, first-hand. Given this additional information, and in conjunction with Mr. St. James and Charle and Siller's attorney, we will consider what legal alternatives and remedies are available."
Commentary: Clearly, this is not perfect, and unlikely given the current regime, but certainly better than the shrill and defensive approach Roesink has taken. Fortunately for the 14th Judicial District she highlighted the arrogance and intransigence in an office pledged to serve the community and the interests of justice. If the ADA's steamroller approach is business-as-usual (which it is), Roesink must let St. James go. If she does not remove St. James, by whatever appropriate means, she should be recalled.
As expected, a spirited defense of her subordinate. Unfortunately what it doesn't say is just as important. It clearly suggests that justice in the Roesink / St. James regime is static and unresponsive when new information comes to light. It never addresses the issues raised yesterday and only reiterates what's "in the record."
What did Roesink say yesterday? That victim's input was unimportant in this instance. That the victim(s) may have committed a crime themselves based on how they reported to police. Through one of her supporters, Police Captain Del Valle, that a local criminal defense attorney didn't understand the law. And, finally, St. James' refusal to take any responsibility for the ensuing confusion with the victims in an otherwise sad case of justice gone sour. Nothing but an unresponsive restatement of now stale facts.
Instead of blaming the paper for one-sided reporting, the victim for inaccurate reporting (suggesting criminal negligence), and the community (to include a local criminal attorney) for not being smart enough to understand the law, Roesink should have taken the high ground and delivered the following:
"I know this situation has drawn attention. But I wanted to explain, from the DA's perspective how we got here. At the time the police received the report, it was believed to be a burglary. Once police arrived, and based on evidence from the storeowners that Charle and Siller likely entered the store, the police made a burglary felony arrest.
"Once Mr. St. James' office received the reports, he moved to file the felony charges which he believed to be supported by the facts.
"Because neither Charle or Siller had a record, the ADA proposed, through their attorney, a plea deal where they could elect to plead to a deferred felony burglary charge or a misdemeanor charge with 6 months of jail. The two defendants, with full knowledge of their actions, and the opportunity to consult with counsel, took the misdemeanor conviction instead of the felony. Throughout the process they also could have gone to trial on the felony charge. This is the usual approach used in plea bargaining throughout the state of Colorado.
"Unfortunately, it was at this point that communication broke down between the victim(s) and the ADA's office. When Mr. Heib contacted Mr. St. James after hearing of the plea bargain, he expressed strong reservations about the results. Our office bears responsibility for this. We did not ask the right questions of Mr. Heib, which should have included questions about why he did not complete the follow-on witness statements AND why he was contacting us this late in the process. Had we been more sensitive to his needs it is likely that justice would have been better served, not only for Charle and Siller, but also for the community. For this I assume full responsibility.
"Only over the holiday weekend did we become fully aware that other factors should have influenced our decisions. Only today have all the parties been in a room together where we have had an opportunity to hear all sides, first-hand. Given this additional information, and in conjunction with Mr. St. James and Charle and Siller's attorney, we will consider what legal alternatives and remedies are available."
Commentary: Clearly, this is not perfect, and unlikely given the current regime, but certainly better than the shrill and defensive approach Roesink took. Fortunately for the 14th Judicial District she highlighted the arrogance and intransigence in an office pledged to serve the community and the interests of justice. If the ADA's steamroller approach is business-as-usual (which it is), Roesink must let St. James go. If she does not remove St. James, by whatever appropriate means, she should be recalled.
Instead of blaming the paper for one-sided reporting, the victim for inaccurate reporting (suggesting criminal negligence), and the community (to include a local criminal attorney) for not being smart enough to understand the law, Roesink should have taken the high ground and delivered the following:
"I know this situation has drawn attention. But I wanted to explain, from the DA's perspective how we got here. At the time the police received the report, it was believed to be a burglary. Once police arrived, and based on evidence from the storeowners that Charle and Siller likely entered the store, the police made a burglary felony arrest.
"Once Mr. St. James' office received the reports, he moved to file the felony charges which he believed to be supported by the facts.
"Because neither Charle or Siller had a record, the ADA proposed, through their attorney, a plea deal where they could elect to plead to a deferred felony burglary charge or a misdemeanor charge with 6 months of jail. The two defendants, with full knowledge of their actions, and the opportunity to consult with counsel, took the misdemeanor conviction instead of the felony. Throughout the process they also could have gone to trial on the felony charge. This is the usual approach used in plea bargaining throughout the state of Colorado.
"Unfortunately, it was at this point that communication broke down between the victim(s) and the ADA's office. When Mr. Heib contacted Mr. St. James after hearing of the plea bargain, he expressed strong reservations about the results. Our office bears responsibility for this. We did not ask the right questions of Mr. Heib, which should have included questions about why he did not complete the follow-on witness statements AND why he was contacting us this late in the process. Had we been more sensitive to his needs it is likely that justice would have been better served, not only for Charle and Siller, but also for the community. For this I assume full responsibility.
"Only over the holiday weekend did we become fully aware that other factors should have influenced our decisions. Only today have all the parties been in a room together where we have had an opportunity to hear all sides, first-hand. Given this additional information, and in conjunction with Mr. St. James and Charle and Siller's attorney, we will consider what legal alternatives and remedies are available."
Commentary: Clearly, this is not perfect, and unlikely given the current regime, but certainly better than the shrill and defensive approach Roesink took. Fortunately for the 14th Judicial District she highlighted the arrogance and intransigence in an office pledged to serve the community and the interests of justice. If the ADA's steamroller approach is business-as-usual (which it is), Roesink must let St. James go. If she does not remove St. James, by whatever appropriate means, she should be recalled.
Today's article is an example of the press going too far. It's not news, but speculation. It speculates that Steamboat Resort (and the town of Steamboat Springs) could see some economic backlash because of the legal climate. This speculation is unlikely. You could just as easily conclude that the bloggers are all members of the Rainbow Family using the forum to try and free their friends.
Intowner and steamboater are exactly right. The issue is, and has been, whether St. James' erratic application of the law is what this community wants. Getting to St. James through his boss, Roesink, requires political pressure from the voting public and not other elected officials. No matter how well intentioned, Anderson's too-little too-late public interest to get the City Council involved (the City doesn't even provide funding for the judicial district) sounds like inappropriate political influence, which is exactly one of the concerns about St. James. It's just a different source of influence.
The responsibility for St. James' actions rests with Roesink and then the voters, not other political intermediaries that probably want to avoid opening the "recall" can of worms themselves. But getting rid of Rosesink (or applying pressure) will result in little if no other attorney in town wants her job, and why would they? Some make good money with the current regime, where they can easily negotiate deals for their high-paying clients that they couldn't otherwise get in a less "biased" legal environment. And if one steps forward, and the recall fails, would they be able to effectively represent their clients in the future?
Getting rid of St. James (or Roesink) is a more difficult proposition than organizing a few protests and starting a petition.
The problem this case represents is much bigger. First, what legal remedy does Hammond believe these two have? They pleaded guilty and signed away their rights of appeal. Does he really believe Roesink will cave on this issue now? Why, because of political pressure from the City Council? Pressure from the defense bar that aided and abetted this travesty in the first place?
Second, why didn't Westphale set this for trial? Is the defense bar so cowed by the St. James / Roesink administration that they were afraid a Routt County jury would convict these two on a felony burglary charge given these facts? Even the storeowners would have been witnesses for the defense!
And now the politicians are getting involved? To correct a short-term problem when the overcharging and mismanagement at the DA's office has been on going for a number of years? What makes Anderson think this particular case is worth the expenditure of his political capital?
Unfortunately, if this is resolved in favor of Charle and Siller, then it is more likely that the pandemic problems in our local criminal justice system will remain intact. The voters will forget and the politicians will move on to the next issue.
The voters in the 9th Judicial District took their responsibilities seriously and moved, for the first time in Colorado history, to remove a sitting DA. Will the voters of the 14th have as much courage?
The 9th Judicial District recalled its DA, Colleen Truden, after several Deputy DA's quit her office and she initiated a policy of questionable and arbitrary charging standards. In fact, she ran unopposed in November 2004.
So, let's see. Roesink took over as the DA in the 14th Judicial District in 2003 (and then ran unopposed in 2004) and since then the Steamboat Springs office alone has lost at least five Deputy DA's and two Victim-Witness Coordinators. This doesn't even count those that left the office in Steamboat Springs (or the other offices) before she took over ... numerous others that fell victim to St James' lack of leadership and erratic prosecution style.
Truden claimed that she had increased the number of felony charges during her tenure. Upon closer examination it proved to be that she likely violated prosecutorial charging guidelines. It looks as if Roesink and St James have taken a page from the Truden bible, "The Idiots Guide to Overcharging a Criminal Case."
Like Truden, Roesink ran unopposed in 2004 and the result is unfortunately similar. If the voters don't have a choice, they end up with the situation we currently have in Routt County and the 14th Judicial District.
Both the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News took strong editorial positions supporting Truden's recall. How long will it take the Steamboat Pilot and Today to take a position on this important issue?
It took the 9th Judicial District seven months to recall Truden. How long will it take the 14th to recall Roesink and terminate St. James?
Not a surprising decision by the DA's office. The technique of zealously overcharging criminal behavior to force a plea agreement to a lesser misdemeanor charge is often used against those that may not have the financial means to fight back. On the other hand, if a wealthy or influential community member drives drunk while pulling a trailer or criminally trespasses when a store is closed for business, the charges magically vanish.
The responsibility for felony charging lies with the DA's office and, specifically with St. James as the senior prosecutor for Routt County. Ms. Roesink has made it crystal clear that St. James is here to stay, despite the recurring turnover of Deputy District Attorneys in his office. This alone should suggest something's amiss, and I'm surprised that the paper has taken so long to recognize the trend.
Just think, only two more years until the next DA election! Maybe this time someone will run against Roesink and the voters will have a choice.
U.S. still strong after Sept. 11
Great sentiments. One hopes you're right.
September 11, 2006 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towny Anderson: Truth and injustice
Anderson's appeal to fairness and small town values is, at best, disingenuous and, at worst, sanctimonious. An essay with no real position. He even avoids any meaningful conclusion with the phrase "perceived injustice."
Is this the same Anderson who led the City Council effort to fire Paul Hughes, without the legal notice required AND right before Christmas?
Is this the same Anderson who has sold out his reported low-income constituency when he voted with the majority in eliminating Westland Trailer Park, some of the only affordable housing in town?
Is this the same Anderson that appears to vote for development yet readily accepts the developer "buys off" (payment-in-lieu) for low-income housing that somehow is never built?
Is this the same Anderson that wants a "safe harbor" out for businesses that break the law so the City Council has a political loophole so they don't have to enforce the liquor code at a public hearing?
Is this the same Anderson whose position on the future of the Community Center seems to change with the last person he spoke to?
Sounds like values to me! Just wonder what kind.
September 10, 2006 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
District Attorney Bonnie Roesink: Newspaper distorted facts of Sweet Pea case
The Letter Roesink Should Have Written:
"I know this situation has drawn attention, and will continue to do so for some time. But I wanted to explain, from the DA's perspective how we got here. At the time the police received the report, it was believed to be a burglary. Once police arrived, and based on evidence from the storeowners that Charle and Siller likely entered the store, the police made a burglary felony arrest.
"Once Mr. St. James' office received the reports, he moved quickly to file the felony charges which he believed to be supported by the facts.
"Because neither Charle or Siller had a record, the ADA proposed, through their attorney, a plea deal where they could elect to plead to a deferred felony burglary charge or a misdemeanor charge with 6 months of jail. The two defendants, with full knowledge of their actions, and the opportunity to consult with counsel, took the misdemeanor conviction instead of the felony. Throughout the process they also could have gone to trial on the felony charge. This is the usual approach used in plea bargaining throughout the state of Colorado.
"Unfortunately, it was at this point that communication broke down between the victim(s) and the ADA's office. When Mr. Heib contacted Mr. St. James after hearing of the plea bargain, he expressed strong reservations about the results. Our office bears responsibility for this. We did not ask the right questions of Mr. Heib, which should have included questions about why he did not complete the follow-on witness statements AND why he was contacting us this late in the process. Had we been more sensitive to his needs it is likely that justice would have been better served, not only for Charle and Siller, but also for the community. For this I assume full responsibility.
"Only over the holiday weekend did we become fully aware that other factors should have influenced our decisions. Only today have all the parties been in a room together where we have had an opportunity to hear all sides, first-hand. Given this additional information, and in conjunction with Mr. St. James and Charle and Siller's attorney, we will consider what legal alternatives and remedies are available."
Commentary: Clearly, this is not perfect, and unlikely given the current regime, but certainly better than the shrill and defensive approach Roesink has taken. Fortunately for the 14th Judicial District she highlighted the arrogance and intransigence in an office pledged to serve the community and the interests of justice. If the ADA's steamroller approach is business-as-usual (which it is), Roesink must let St. James go. If she does not remove St. James, by whatever appropriate means, she should be recalled.
September 6, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
District Attorney Bonnie Roesink: Newspaper distorted facts of Sweet Pea case
As expected, a spirited defense of her subordinate. Unfortunately what it doesn't say is just as important. It clearly suggests that justice in the Roesink / St. James regime is static and unresponsive when new information comes to light. It never addresses the issues raised yesterday and only reiterates what's "in the record."
What did Roesink say yesterday? That victim's input was unimportant in this instance. That the victim(s) may have committed a crime themselves based on how they reported to police. Through one of her supporters, Police Captain Del Valle, that a local criminal defense attorney didn't understand the law. And, finally, St. James' refusal to take any responsibility for the ensuing confusion with the victims in an otherwise sad case of justice gone sour. Nothing but an unresponsive restatement of now stale facts.
September 6, 2006 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DA: Justice was served
Instead of blaming the paper for one-sided reporting, the victim for inaccurate reporting (suggesting criminal negligence), and the community (to include a local criminal attorney) for not being smart enough to understand the law, Roesink should have taken the high ground and delivered the following:
"I know this situation has drawn attention. But I wanted to explain, from the DA's perspective how we got here. At the time the police received the report, it was believed to be a burglary. Once police arrived, and based on evidence from the storeowners that Charle and Siller likely entered the store, the police made a burglary felony arrest.
"Once Mr. St. James' office received the reports, he moved to file the felony charges which he believed to be supported by the facts.
"Because neither Charle or Siller had a record, the ADA proposed, through their attorney, a plea deal where they could elect to plead to a deferred felony burglary charge or a misdemeanor charge with 6 months of jail. The two defendants, with full knowledge of their actions, and the opportunity to consult with counsel, took the misdemeanor conviction instead of the felony. Throughout the process they also could have gone to trial on the felony charge. This is the usual approach used in plea bargaining throughout the state of Colorado.
"Unfortunately, it was at this point that communication broke down between the victim(s) and the ADA's office. When Mr. Heib contacted Mr. St. James after hearing of the plea bargain, he expressed strong reservations about the results. Our office bears responsibility for this. We did not ask the right questions of Mr. Heib, which should have included questions about why he did not complete the follow-on witness statements AND why he was contacting us this late in the process. Had we been more sensitive to his needs it is likely that justice would have been better served, not only for Charle and Siller, but also for the community. For this I assume full responsibility.
"Only over the holiday weekend did we become fully aware that other factors should have influenced our decisions. Only today have all the parties been in a room together where we have had an opportunity to hear all sides, first-hand. Given this additional information, and in conjunction with Mr. St. James and Charle and Siller's attorney, we will consider what legal alternatives and remedies are available."
Commentary: Clearly, this is not perfect, and unlikely given the current regime, but certainly better than the shrill and defensive approach Roesink took. Fortunately for the 14th Judicial District she highlighted the arrogance and intransigence in an office pledged to serve the community and the interests of justice. If the ADA's steamroller approach is business-as-usual (which it is), Roesink must let St. James go. If she does not remove St. James, by whatever appropriate means, she should be recalled.
September 6, 2006 at 7:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
A partial transcript from the meeting with District Attorney's Office officials
Instead of blaming the paper for one-sided reporting, the victim for inaccurate reporting (suggesting criminal negligence), and the community (to include a local criminal attorney) for not being smart enough to understand the law, Roesink should have taken the high ground and delivered the following:
"I know this situation has drawn attention. But I wanted to explain, from the DA's perspective how we got here. At the time the police received the report, it was believed to be a burglary. Once police arrived, and based on evidence from the storeowners that Charle and Siller likely entered the store, the police made a burglary felony arrest.
"Once Mr. St. James' office received the reports, he moved to file the felony charges which he believed to be supported by the facts.
"Because neither Charle or Siller had a record, the ADA proposed, through their attorney, a plea deal where they could elect to plead to a deferred felony burglary charge or a misdemeanor charge with 6 months of jail. The two defendants, with full knowledge of their actions, and the opportunity to consult with counsel, took the misdemeanor conviction instead of the felony. Throughout the process they also could have gone to trial on the felony charge. This is the usual approach used in plea bargaining throughout the state of Colorado.
"Unfortunately, it was at this point that communication broke down between the victim(s) and the ADA's office. When Mr. Heib contacted Mr. St. James after hearing of the plea bargain, he expressed strong reservations about the results. Our office bears responsibility for this. We did not ask the right questions of Mr. Heib, which should have included questions about why he did not complete the follow-on witness statements AND why he was contacting us this late in the process. Had we been more sensitive to his needs it is likely that justice would have been better served, not only for Charle and Siller, but also for the community. For this I assume full responsibility.
"Only over the holiday weekend did we become fully aware that other factors should have influenced our decisions. Only today have all the parties been in a room together where we have had an opportunity to hear all sides, first-hand. Given this additional information, and in conjunction with Mr. St. James and Charle and Siller's attorney, we will consider what legal alternatives and remedies are available."
Commentary: Clearly, this is not perfect, and unlikely given the current regime, but certainly better than the shrill and defensive approach Roesink took. Fortunately for the 14th Judicial District she highlighted the arrogance and intransigence in an office pledged to serve the community and the interests of justice. If the ADA's steamroller approach is business-as-usual (which it is), Roesink must let St. James go. If she does not remove St. James, by whatever appropriate means, she should be recalled.
September 6, 2006 at 7:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Story ripe for the picking
Today's article is an example of the press going too far. It's not news, but speculation. It speculates that Steamboat Resort (and the town of Steamboat Springs) could see some economic backlash because of the legal climate. This speculation is unlikely. You could just as easily conclude that the bloggers are all members of the Rainbow Family using the forum to try and free their friends.
Intowner and steamboater are exactly right. The issue is, and has been, whether St. James' erratic application of the law is what this community wants. Getting to St. James through his boss, Roesink, requires political pressure from the voting public and not other elected officials. No matter how well intentioned, Anderson's too-little too-late public interest to get the City Council involved (the City doesn't even provide funding for the judicial district) sounds like inappropriate political influence, which is exactly one of the concerns about St. James. It's just a different source of influence.
The responsibility for St. James' actions rests with Roesink and then the voters, not other political intermediaries that probably want to avoid opening the "recall" can of worms themselves. But getting rid of Rosesink (or applying pressure) will result in little if no other attorney in town wants her job, and why would they? Some make good money with the current regime, where they can easily negotiate deals for their high-paying clients that they couldn't otherwise get in a less "biased" legal environment. And if one steps forward, and the recall fails, would they be able to effectively represent their clients in the future?
Getting rid of St. James (or Roesink) is a more difficult proposition than organizing a few protests and starting a petition.
September 5, 2006 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Too much time?
The problem this case represents is much bigger. First, what legal remedy does Hammond believe these two have? They pleaded guilty and signed away their rights of appeal. Does he really believe Roesink will cave on this issue now? Why, because of political pressure from the City Council? Pressure from the defense bar that aided and abetted this travesty in the first place?
Second, why didn't Westphale set this for trial? Is the defense bar so cowed by the St. James / Roesink administration that they were afraid a Routt County jury would convict these two on a felony burglary charge given these facts? Even the storeowners would have been witnesses for the defense!
And now the politicians are getting involved? To correct a short-term problem when the overcharging and mismanagement at the DA's office has been on going for a number of years? What makes Anderson think this particular case is worth the expenditure of his political capital?
Unfortunately, if this is resolved in favor of Charle and Siller, then it is more likely that the pandemic problems in our local criminal justice system will remain intact. The voters will forget and the politicians will move on to the next issue.
The voters in the 9th Judicial District took their responsibilities seriously and moved, for the first time in Colorado history, to remove a sitting DA. Will the voters of the 14th have as much courage?
September 4, 2006 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Men get six months in jail for stealing food from trash
The 9th Judicial District recalled its DA, Colleen Truden, after several Deputy DA's quit her office and she initiated a policy of questionable and arbitrary charging standards. In fact, she ran unopposed in November 2004.
So, let's see. Roesink took over as the DA in the 14th Judicial District in 2003 (and then ran unopposed in 2004) and since then the Steamboat Springs office alone has lost at least five Deputy DA's and two Victim-Witness Coordinators. This doesn't even count those that left the office in Steamboat Springs (or the other offices) before she took over ... numerous others that fell victim to St James' lack of leadership and erratic prosecution style.
Truden claimed that she had increased the number of felony charges during her tenure. Upon closer examination it proved to be that she likely violated prosecutorial charging guidelines. It looks as if Roesink and St James have taken a page from the Truden bible, "The Idiots Guide to Overcharging a Criminal Case."
Like Truden, Roesink ran unopposed in 2004 and the result is unfortunately similar. If the voters don't have a choice, they end up with the situation we currently have in Routt County and the 14th Judicial District.
Both the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News took strong editorial positions supporting Truden's recall. How long will it take the Steamboat Pilot and Today to take a position on this important issue?
It took the 9th Judicial District seven months to recall Truden. How long will it take the 14th to recall Roesink and terminate St. James?
September 2, 2006 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Men get six months in jail for stealing food from trash
Not a surprising decision by the DA's office. The technique of zealously overcharging criminal behavior to force a plea agreement to a lesser misdemeanor charge is often used against those that may not have the financial means to fight back. On the other hand, if a wealthy or influential community member drives drunk while pulling a trailer or criminally trespasses when a store is closed for business, the charges magically vanish.
The responsibility for felony charging lies with the DA's office and, specifically with St. James as the senior prosecutor for Routt County. Ms. Roesink has made it crystal clear that St. James is here to stay, despite the recurring turnover of Deputy District Attorneys in his office. This alone should suggest something's amiss, and I'm surprised that the paper has taken so long to recognize the trend.
Just think, only two more years until the next DA election! Maybe this time someone will run against Roesink and the voters will have a choice.
September 2, 2006 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )